D&D 5E Rogue’s Fast Hands and Manacles

[TaranTheWanderer]

As a dm do you allow the ability for a rogue to with quick hands to clip manacles on someone? Do what kinds of penalties you you give? What kind of check is it?

My Dm has been doing slight of hand vs athletics or acrobatics. The rogue, though, has expertise in slight of hand so it’s almost guaranteed success. It usually hampers a target enough that they are no longer a factor in a battle. Seeing it in action, I’m not sure I’d allow it in a game I’d run. But idk. Fast hands is kind of fun.

thoughts?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, I would certainly allow it. I would require a slight of hand check with a DC equal to the target's AC.

 

[MarkB]

Simple question: How would you normally rule manacles being applied to someone? If it would normally be either a Sleight of Hand check as an action, or an object interaction, then it qualifies for Fast Hands.

I'd tend towards allowing it - it's a common trope in media for someone dextrous to sneak a set of handcuffs onto an opponent when they're distracted. However, I'd be concerned about how this stacks with both Expertise and Reliable Talent - it could easily become an effectively unblockable tactic.

 

[jgsugden]

If you're talking about slapping manacles on someone in the middle of combat, I would make it far more difficult than a sleight of hand check versus the AC or athletics/acrobatics of the enemy. This would require some sort of an ability tailored to applying the manacles, a helpless/restrained foe, or something of that nature. There is a reason in the real world that cops don't just approach a person with a weapon out and apply cuffs without disabling the person, first.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I would not. At least not against a creature defending itself.
Why?
The cost: a pair of manacle costs 2 gp and the DC to break or escape them is rather high (DC 20) and its a flat ability check, so no athletics or acrobatics against said DC.

So, as a Bonus Action, at the minimal cost of 2 GP, the rogue can more or less remove a creature from battle? That's a little too powerful to be at-will, IMHO.

Against an incapacited target, no problem though.

Or maybe I'd let the rogue do it, but the ability check to escape de manacle only requires an interact with an object action instead of a full action. And the penalty from having his hand bound would be something like:

• No 2-handed weapons, no shield.
• Disadvantage on attack roll.
• Disadvantage on ability check that would requires free hands.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Well, I might allow it after someone is grappled. The slight of hands thing is cool but I’d require the target to be distracted: So, in a fight, the target couldn’t be actively engaging the rogue. If the target is fighting another PC, the rogue could sneak up and do it. In our game, the rogue was in ‘honourable combat’ with a warrior. He slapped on the manacles and whapped the guy. Slight of hand implies your hands aren’t being watched. I might have required an athletics check in this situation instead of a slight of hand. But that just my feelings.

targeting AC seems even easier than an opposed check.

also, how do you manacle someone whose doing sword and board? Their hands aren’t even close enough to each other to get the manacles on. Maybe on their ankles?

 

[Oofta]

Depending on circumstances, yes. The target creature has to be standing next to something you can manacle them to, even if it's to an adjacent creature.

However I wouldn't allow it in combat unless target is unconscious or stunned.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I might allow it after someone is grappled. The slight of hands thing is cool but I’d require the target to be distracted: So, in a fight, the target couldn’t be actively engaging the rogue. If the target is fighting another PC, the rogue could sneak up and do it. In our game, the rogue was in ‘honourable combat’ with a warrior. He slapped on the manacles and whapped the guy. Slight of hand implies your hands aren’t being watched. I might have required an athletics check in this situation instead of a slight of hand. But that just my feelings.

targeting AC seems even easier than an opposed check.

also, how do you manacle someone whose doing sword and board? Their hands aren’t even close enough to each other to get the manacles on. Maybe on their ankles?

I don't think I'd allow it while grappled, I'd require restrained or paralyzed. Grappled is just held in place, the target still generally has full use of their arms.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Since this is not a standard combat maneuver with set rules in the book, it would fall under a DM's Rulings, Not Rules. Thus the viability of the action would almost entirely be up to the narrative story situation the party and the target find themselves in... and I'd make a ruling based on how the action was described, what the target was doing, any distractions, what were in the target's hands, etc. etc. etc.

A rogue that had hid and then snuck up from behind the target to slap the manacles on them when they weren't expecting it? Cool idea, and a Sleight of Hand check would make sense (and I'd give the target Disadvantage on the Athletics/Acrobatics check to defend themselves against it.) But a target wielding a greatsword currently fighting in melee against the party's platemailed paladin tank and the rogue says they want to just walk up in the middle of that fight between the two behemoths and try and slap the handcuffs on the target at the same time? Probably penalized out the wazoo for the attempt, plus receiving at the very least an Opportunity Attack from the target (and heck, maybe even the paladin accidentally as well). And because of how ridiculous the narrative is of this action is, that OA I'd probably rule would make the rogue possibly drop the manacles altogether.

But hey... if the rogue still tried it and it ends up working? That makes for an awesome story! And more importantly, the difficulty of the action would hopefully compel the rogue to not really try it again in normal circumstance... thereby making that story wholly original and memorable... and not just the first of dozens of repeated actions each and every combat. Cause if that's what the rogue wants... I'll make the whole manacle-in-combat thing a feat and balance the rules of it against grappling and low-level spells and the like so it becomes a standard rogue combat action that doesn't create any unbalance to the other players and monsters.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don't think I'd allow it while grappled, I'd require restrained or paralyzed. Grappled is just held in place, the target still generally has full use of their arms.

I guess my point is that, to manacle someone, it’s not just a straight action. There needs to be some kind of circumstance set up before you can do it.
Being sufficiently distracted might do it (for slight of hand) but that feels like an out of combat maneuver.